Originally Posted by Mr. H
It belongs to Apple and Apple is owned by its shareholders. It's Apple's management that get to decide how the $100 billion is spent.
I honestly think it beggars belief that you think it'd be wrong to spend 0.5% of that wealth to improve living conditions of those making Apple products.
Just as I honestly think it beggars believe that you think that it's Apple's job to rectify all the world's wrongs.
Apple has created hundreds of thousands of jobs in China - jobs that apparently pay considerably more than the alternatives. They have engaged in free market purchasing - they worked out a price that Foxconn was apparently quite willing to do the work for. Foxconn similarly has a free market arrangement with its employees. They offer a wage and the employees chose to work for them. if the employees did not think it was a good deal, they could go elsewhere.
I'm just curious. Where do you draw the line? After all, by your logic, Apple has lots of money. They should:
- Fix the working conditions at all of their suppliers. They should pay more money to Samsung so that Samsung can pay more to its employees, for example.
- Fix the poor food quality problems in China. As has been argued here, food in China is not readily available with the same nutritional content as ours. Apple should set up its own farms and give the food away. They can afford it.
- Health care in China is atrocious. Apple should build hospitals and offer free health care.
- Pollution in China is worse than in any city I've seen in the U.S. Apple should buy electric cars for everyone.
And so on.
- Heck, even in the U.S., our working conditions are worse than some other countries. Apple should offer a year of paid maternity leave and should limit its employees to 28 hours per week globally (to match Netherlands' work week) and provide a guaranteed 44 days off per year to match Finland).
After all, Apple can afford to do those things, so why shouldn't they? Right?